New archeological discoveries at the all too famous city of Petra, have revived speculation in some and confirmation in others as to who the builders of Petra were. The recurring name amongst everyone from historians and archeologists to individuals seeking answers on the web out of sheer curiosity is the “Nabataeans.”
However, the name of this red-rock city changed according to who of the non-Greeks had possession of it at the time, for instance: the Edomites called it “Sela(h)” (2 Kin. 14:7; Isaiah 16:1) and Amaziah king of Judah called it “Joktheel” (2 Kin. 14:7). The Greeks, however, always referred to it as “Petra”.
“The first mention of the Nabataeans dates from 312/311 BC, when they were attacked at Sela or perhaps at Petra without success by Antigonus I’s officer Athenaeus in the course of the Third War of the Diadochi [between 322 and 281 B.C]; at that time Hieronymus of Cardia, a Seleucid officer, mentions the Nabataeans in a battle report.” (Wikipedia)
Note: Sela (the rock), and Petra (rock) are two names for the same place. The former in Hebrew and the latter in Greek.
But according to Dan Gibson (Nabataea.Net),
“Nabataean history goes back thousands of years, but since it is so elusive, most historians start in 586 BC, when the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar’s leadership captured Jerusalem and the Jewish people were hauled off as captives to distant lands.”
“About this time [586 B.C.], we begin to find records of Nabataeans living in Edomite territory.”
“Historians have uncovered several documents where the Nabataeans seem to be mentioned. But, unfortunately, no one is sure that the Nabataeans who built Petra are one and the same as the people mentioned in these documents.”
“Josephus, the ancient Jewish historian, identified the Nabataeans with Ishmael’s eldest son (Genesis 25:13). He claimed that the Nabataeans lived through the whole country extending from the Euphrates to the Red Sea. He refers to this area as Nabatene–the area that the Nabataeans roamed in. Josephus goes on to say that it was the Nabataeans who conferred their names on the Arabian nations (Jewish Antiquities 1.22, 1). We can assume this to mean that during his lifetime the word Arab and Nabataean had become synonymous.”
Genesis 25:13-16
13 And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam, 14 And Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa, 15 Hadar, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah: 16 These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations. (nations referring to their people i.e. generations, not the lands).
You will see in Josephus’ quote below, which is not in the location Mr. Gibson provides, that Josephus does not identify the Nabataeans with Ishmael’s eldest son for he lists the sons’ names just as they appear in Genesis (spelling notwithstanding) and there is no singling out the eldest son for anything other than being the firstborn. Neither is Josephus the one who “refers to this area as Nabatene”, but rather he clearly states it is the sons of Ishmael who called it that. In reference to Ishmael’s sons, Josephus says “they,” “these,” and “their” whereas Mr. Gibson chooses to say, “the Nabataeans who conferred their names on the Arabian nations”. They are Arabian, they did not confer their names onto them. By doing this he indirectly acknowledges the plurality of the sons names but groups them under one name. Why not just call them Ishmaelites as the Bible does?
“Western Arabia, which includes the peninsula of Sinai and the Desert of Petra, originally inhabited by the Horites Gen. 14:6 etc., but in later times by the descendants of Esau, and known as the Land of Edom or Idumea, also as the Desert of Seir or Mount Seir. The whole land appears Gen. 10:1ff. to have been inhabited by a variety of tribes of different lineage, Ishmaelites, Arabians, Idumeans, Horites, and Edomites; but at length becoming amalgamated, they came to be known by the general designation of Arabs. The modern nation of Arabs is predominantly Ishmaelite.” (Easton)
Josephus—Book 1, chapter 12, paragraph 4 (221)
“When the lad [Ishmael] was grown up, he married a wife, by birth an Egyptian, from whence the mother was herself derived originally. Of this wife were born to Ismael twelve sons; Nabaioth, Kedar, Abdeel, Mabsam, Idumas, Masmaos, Masoss, Chodad, Theman, Jetur, Naphesus, Cadmas. These inhabited all the country from Euphrates to the Red Sea, and called it Nabatene. They are an Arabian nation and name their tribes from these, both because of their own virtue and because of the dignity of Abraham their father.” (emphasis added)
But there is more to the story!
Aside from brief mentions that Josephus connected Ishmael’s sons to Nabatene, the insistence of two separate peoples (who incidentally have virtually identical lifestyles) is persistent among several sites I’ve read on this topic. Nevertheless, residing in a land near or within a particular city is not an automatic indication they are the builders of that city. This is confirmed at the beginning of this article. According to whom I have already quoted and several others I have not, little is known of the Nabataeans before 586 B.C. if what Mr. Gibson says is correct. But if records were found that the Nabataeans were living in Edomite territory and we know the Edomites resided at Petra centuries earlier, then how can it be claimed that the Nabataeans built the city of Petra? How do we know that they did not follow in the steps of some infamous Pharaohs who destroyed documented evidence of their predecessors’ successes? Could this be a case of modern-day historical cherry-picking to suit the most popular narrative?
What I find interesting is that one reference to a name by Josephus has been readily accepted to mean more than what was stated while another name to whom he refers receives no acknowledgment.
Josephus—Book 4, chapter 7, paragraph 1 (161)
“When they were come, and they had joined battle with them, an immense multitude of the Midianites fell; nor could they be numbered, they were so very many; and among them fell all their kings, five in number, viz., Evi, Zur, Reba, Hur, and Rekem, who was of the same name with a city, the chief and capital of all Arabia, which is still now so called by the whole Arabian nation, Arecem, from the name of the king that built it; but is by the Greeks called Petra.”
Cir. 1452 B.C. “And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.” Numbers 31:8.
Workmanship such as went into building Petra was no quick thing despite other historians saying it was quickly built. These kings were slain in cir. 1452 B.C. by the Edomites so if what Josephus says is correct, king Rekem built Arecem (Petra) well before 1452 B.C.
Like Ishmael (born of Hagar) who grew up wild and mocked Isaac, Midian (whose name means “strife”) is also a son born to Abraham (by Keturah; after the death of Sarah). He is the father of the Midianites (Gen. 25:1-6). It seems more likely that a Midian descendant made King would have the means necessary to build the city of Petra versus a descendant of an Ishmaelite prince, though wealthy, but is not said to have anything beyond a town and a castle.
So the answer to the title question is no, the Nabataeans a.k.a. Ishmaelites did not build Petra!
Kathy Beardsley 2/4/2025
Truth with Snares!? 
Leave a comment